A third-grader has just spent the morning at a Native American
festival sponsored by an archeological park. He got to reconstruct a pot, watch
a flint-knapper, and dance with Native Americans in traditional dress. As his
teacher rounds up the class for the bus ride back to school, he runs up to her,
his eyes sparkling.
"My mom was wrong!" he says.
"What's that?"
"Well, my mom said that I wouldn't have any fun. That this would just be boring.
But she was wrong. It's the best field trip I've ever had!"

This is a true story, reported to the staff of an archeological
park by a teacher. And it is a telling example of how these parks can reach
the public, guiding popular ideas about archeology and Native Americans while
delivering the message in a way that is fun, exciting, and memorable.

The exhibits and interpretive programs at the archeological
parks in the lower Delta (mainly preserved mound sites) constitute what is arguably
the public's single most important source of information about archeology. That,
along with preservation of the sites themselves, is undoubtedly the most important
benefit from the development of archeological parks.

Dilemmas in
Park Development

The public has long been fascinated by ancient earthworks. In
the 1800s, mound sites were the focus of early antiquarian musings. Later, public
interest prompted the preservation of some as parks or privately run tourist
attractions. Although many archeological parks preserve unique or significant
sites, the development of most was largely determined by quirks of fate, such
as their location or the interest of a landowner or community. Unfortunately,
fate has not been kind to most of the mounds within or adjacent to Illinois'
Cahokia, a World Heritage Site. Like many mounds in the Delta, they have been
destroyed.

On the surface, it may seem that public ownership and interpretation
of mound sites are both inherently "desirable." But more thoughtful consideration
raises a number of caveats. Many archeologists and land managers might assume
that "public ownership" equates with preservation, but experience shows that
this is not always the case.

The largest mound at Tennessee's Shiloh National Battlefield
(see sidebar) sits precariously on the edge of an eroding bluff over 100 feet
above Kentucky Lake. The erosion was first noted decades ago, but to date nothing
has been done about it.

Several years ago, the mean water level of Tennessee's Reelfoot
Lake was raised by a foot. Although this may not seem like much, it was enough
to destroy a large mound remnant in a matter of a few years. Unchecked erosion
is destroying archeological deposits at Tennessee's Chucalissa and Pinson Mounds.
Public ownership can contribute to site preservation, but only with sensitive
land management.

As strong proponents of archeological parks, we are nonetheless
obliged to note that developing them will always have adverse impacts. Constructing
interpretive centers, kiosks, and trails will affect the archeological remains.
An extreme example is the unfortunate choice of a location for the museum at
Pinson Mounds, which proved to contain important prehistoric archeological deposits.
Construction of playground and picnic areas cannot only damage archeological
deposits, but also detract from the visual impact of nearby earthworks.

While thorough, sensitive planning can minimize impacts on archeological
resources during construction, even simple park maintenance tasks such as mowing
and grounds upkeep can have serious consequences. For example, we have observed
the effects of an overzealous tractor driver mowing an earthwork after several
days of heavy rain. Something as innocuous as selecting gravel for walkways
can prove deleterious. We know of one instance where chert gravel was the choice
for trails that forever after will plague archeologists searching for lithic
debitage.

Despite these problems, we feel that the negative impacts of
developing archeological parks are more than offset by the enormous benefits
gained by heightening public awareness of archeology.

Development
and Interpretation Today

In the Delta today, all mound sites open to the general public
are on public lands, mostly under state management. Many have been developed
for public use as archeological parks, which include museums or interpretive
centers with exhibits and staffs to provide educational programming.

Levels of development are similar at major archeological parks.
All contain an interpretive center or museum with exhibits, which usually include
an overview of southeastern prehistory from paleoindian to European contact
periods, often something about the methods of archeology, and an interpretation
of the site. Less common interpretive treatments may include town reconstructions
and preserved excavations cuts. Facilities may include an auditorium for general
programs, a gift shop, and collections storage.

Interpretive programming varies widely at these parks, but most
sponsor at least one annual festival highlighting contemporary Native American
cultures and provide regular guided tours to school children. A number of the
sites offer year-round programs that include crafts festivals and classes, scouting
activities, lecture and film series, storytelling, archeology fairs, and other
events focusing on Native American cultures or archeology.

Chucalissa:
An Example

Preservation of mound sites as parks undoubtedly has contributed
to their survival, but location on public lands does not guarantee their safe
management, nor even their continued survival. As an example, consider recent
events at the Chucalissa site in Memphis.

The site has been open to the public for about 40 years, first
under the management of Tennessee state parks and later the University of Memphis,
which has made it available to faculty and students for research and training.
The site includes two mounds and a plaza area, around which have been reconstructed
a half-dozen thatched Mississippian-style houses, popular with visitors and
filmmakers, and rarely seen at other sites. Facilities includes a small museum,
auditorium, and curation space. A variety of educational programs have been
offered at Chucalissa, ranging from crafts classes to guided school tours to
festivals. An annual "pow-wow" has been held for about two decades, while "Native
American Days," a three-year-old event targeted to elementary school students,
attracted over 3,000 visitors in its first year. Although popular with tourists
and school groups, declining admissions average slightly under 30,000 per year.

Despite the site's commendable history of public service, recent
years have witnessed a decline in general support. Exhibits were last updated
in the mid-1970s and are now dated and deteriorating. The reconstructed houses
around the outside plaza have suffered greatly from inadequate maintenance and
holes are now visible through the thatched roofs. The dioramas are suffering
from the elements. Choctaw Indians have been employed as guides for many years,
but unfortunately have lacked training in archeology or public education, making
the quality of tours uneven at best. Worst of all, the university president
has announced plans to close the site and museum due to budgetary constraints
and what are considered to be insufficient revenues generated by this educational
resource. At this writing, the future is uncertain.

Reaching the
Potential

Archeological parks such as Chucalissa and those mentioned above
hold the key to public education. Outdated exhibits and facilities, lack of
trained personnel, and inadequate funds all contribute to limiting the public
education potential of these sites. The permanent interpretive exhibits, as
well as the sites themselves, reach many people who might not be exposed to
the science and contributions of archeology any other way. Add to that special
events, school tours, and scout programs, and one gets an inkling of the amount
of people who would discover that learning about archeology is fun.

Unfortunately, few archeological parks are reaching their full
potential. Outdated exhibits and facilities, lack of trained personnel, and
inadequate funds all contribute to limiting the education these sites are capable
of. Management of archeological properties requires special considerations that
few park personnel have the training to deal with and that cannot be corrected
by attending a week-long seminar or weekend workshop on management style or
interpretive ideas.

Without a doubt, the most pressing need at these parks is for
personnel to manage them wisely, able to ensure their protection while promoting
their educational potential. These managers must also have the training to develop
educational programs based on sound archeological knowledge.

One way to improve management is to see that each archeological
park had a board of advisors. Such a group, consisting of professionals in archeology,
museology, and education, as well as local supporters, would institute general
policy to oversee changes in exhibits, quality of interpretive programming,
physical impacts to the site, and requests for research permits. Such a board
would limit capricious decisions while setting goals for the future. A board
would go a long way to ensuring that archeological parks become the jewels of
education they are meant to be.

Making the public aware of these sites is a first step. The
objectives of the initiatives to study the Delta should do much to enhance their
potential.